Adding 48 hours grace to rejected CRTs

[ImmortalDread]

Introduction​

---

It pertains to the time grace given to apply the approved CRTs. As it stands, a 48-hour grace period is granted for approved CRTs, whereas no such grace period is given for rejected CRTs. In light of this, I believe it is necessary to extend the time grace to rejected CRTs as well. Doing so will afford individuals the opportunity to submit their posts and supporting/opposing arguments and evidence, and could potentially prevent the submission of duplicate CRTs. I am specifically referring to rejected CRTs that were not provided with any discussion rules.

This is current rule

For all content revision suggestions, a grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the reviewing staff members to evaluate and approve them. This grace period applies to both minor and self-evident revisions, as well as larger revisions that may require more input from other staff members. This is to ensure that all staff members have the opportunity to review the suggested revisions and provide their input, even if the initial explanation post in a content revision thread is quite large and complicated. Until this grace period has elapsed since the time of the thread's creation, the revision should not be applied to the profiles.

And I would like to add this minor line

For all content revision suggestions, a grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the reviewing staff members to evaluate and approve them. This grace period shall apply to both minor and self-evident revisions, as well as larger revisions that may require more input from other staff members. In addition, rejected CRTs that did not have any discussion rules shall also be granted a 48-hour grace period to allow members the opportunity to submit their posts and supporting/opposing arguments and evidence. This is to ensure that all staff members and members have the opportunity to review the suggested revisions and provide their input, even if the initial explanation post in a content revision thread is quite large and complicated. Until this grace period has elapsed since the time of the thread's creation or rejection, the revision should not be applied to the profiles or directly closed.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that this would cause serious problems for our staff in our work with trying to properly manage this forum, as the discussions would almost never end despite being rejected, just have their time limits be extended and extended and extended, and not stop wasting our time well beyond the point of redundancy.

 

[Deagonx]

Eh, it's not uncommon for people to post threads that are so unbelievably ridiculous that they warrant immediate closure. Adding an obstacle to closing them just ensures that they get to cause a longer headache. I think threads that have genuine merit usually last longer than this anyways, and ideally an efficient OP will include the most compelling arguments and evidence in the first place. So I have to disagree.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Deagonx

Those type of content revisions are obvious and exceptional, I am more of talking about controversial ones.

 

[Deagonx]

Right, but your proposed text doesn't account for that, and whilst we could of course add some kind of stipulation, the fact remains that the decision of whether or not a thread is "exceptional" in the sense that it can be closed immediately will be a subjective one made by staff, which would put us right back where we started. That in mind, I disagree.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Deagonx

Those type of content revisions has been already clarified in discussion rules which one is controversial and which is not.

But you got a point for me not clearing this one up.

So I apologize and will do it better. Tho, since I don't have access to my tablet atm, I will clarify it later in OP or the next comment.

Can someone ping staff members for more opinions?

 

[Deagonx]

If by "controversial" you're referring to Tier 1 stuff and the like, then no, I still absolutely disagree with mandating that any Tier 1 thread -- no matter how ridiculous -- must stay open for 48 hours.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Are you sure you read the discussion rules?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I think that this would cause serious problems for our staff in our work with trying to properly manage this forum, as the discussions would almost never end despite being rejected, just have their time limits be extended and extended and extended, and not stop wasting our time well beyond the point of redundancy.

Tho, I would more of like to point out that this happened sometimes due to timezone difference and the user could not comment on the counter-arguments and the thread has been rushed to conclusions (specially staff members had no knowledge in verse)

Tho, this is one instance and i would like to hear other staff members about it.

Can someone ping staff members for more opinions?

 

[Deagonx]

Are you sure you read the discussion rules?

I am. Moreover, have you? Reading this statement:

Those type of content revisions has been already clarified in discussion rules which one is controversial and which is not.

Can you tell me which line in the discussion rules this refers to?

(specially staff members had no knowledge in verse)

Knowledge of the verse is irrelevant, a CRT should display all relevant information and evidence such that even an absolute newcomer should be able to come to the correct conclusion. If understanding a proposal requires extra information that isn't in the CRT, then it's a bad CRT. However, I find often that calls for "staff members knowledgeable about the verse" is often more referring to "staff members who are known fans of a verse, and are likely to support an upgrade out of hand." In which case, still no.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I will answer this when I come to student home (I got 6% battery)

But no, when I said staff member has no knowledge of verse, I am referring to staff members who can't exactly verify if information of counter arguments/OP being accurate in the first place (or exists)

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Yeah, gotta agree with Deagon and Ant.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Antvasima and Deagon too.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I kindly request that this thread be closed, as I concur with Deagon and Ant's opinions. Upon thorough consideration, it appears unwise to pursue this matter any further.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Some threads are rejected after pages and pages of back and forth.

Some threads are just some guy going, "Uuuuuhm, why isn't Scrimblo Bimblo Outerversal?" with links to some scan of a character hyperbolically going, "His power is beyond dimension!"

 

[Deceived3596]

I can't stand the Scrimblo Bimblo downplay on this wiki, it's disgusting.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I can't stand the Scrimblo Bimblo downplay on this wiki, it's disgusting.

If you believe it's downplay, make a CRT so the wiki can hear your case.

 

[Crabwhale]

Deceived is gay by the way.